Newbie 844 - Game Over (Scum Win)

[Pyrogen]

EBWOP:

Also, as far as the idea of "helping your future play;" while that is all well and good, you need to play *this* game to

win

, not use it as a stepping stone in future endeavors. The rest of us are here to play *this* game, and I, for one, would prefer that you play to the utmost of your abilities, whether as town or scum.

I have played this game to win. In both cases, even if I die there is a chance I will win. I however am more likely to win if I survive, and I have no intentention of getting lynched.

just me 1 Annachie
DarthRandal1138
Dondero
Annachie
xvart
Pyrogen 1 just me
hitogoroshi 1 Dondero,
startransmission
fhqwhgads 1 startransmission

No Lynch 1


Not Voting

hitogoroshi
fhqwhgads
xvart
DarthRandal1138
Pyrogen

[xvart]

Curious how you've left out the fact that I unvoted myself in that very post. Pragmatically, I did nothing but unvote. I am in no way "sacrificing" myself.

It isn't really curious at all; had you left the vote on there I most surely would have immediately cast my vote for you, for the reason I listed; however, I did not. Additionally, my other point still stands about erratic behavior, regardless of if you vote/unvoted yourself in the same post or not.

xvart.

[Pyrogen]

I'm not saying we have to not lynch anybody today(...)

Then why the vote? Why not just bring up the idea of a no-lynch; see what we all have to say? By committing your vote, you imply that you are strongly in favor of a no-lynch.

I NEVER WANTED A NO LYNCH. When StarTransmission voted for fgads on the vote, do you think he was "strongly in favor of" lynching fgads? It was RVS and I made an RVS vote that was in the spirit of RVS but wasn't really random.

Don't worry though about an early no lynch, if anybody jumped on my "no lynch" bandwagon I'd be the first to vote for them instead.

So what does everyone else think about the Day-1 no lynch?

So were you just waiting for someone to support a no-lynch so you'd have a "reason" to vote them?

Vote Annachie
For being the only one not to disapprove of the no-lynch while mentioning it(...)

Hmm... guess so.

It also sparked some discussion. I don't think it worked very well since a pro day-1 no-lynch can also be applied to newbieness.

Vote DarthRandal

Personally I think you're at the level of 2-very suspiscious, but I only have one vote, so whatever.

Subtly implying that others should vote for me as well? Or quietly telling your scumbuddy that I would be a good target for a mislynch?

Yeah. No.

[xvart]

EBWOP:

Also, as far as the idea of "helping your future play;" while that is all well and good, you need to play *this* game to

win

, not use it as a stepping stone in future endeavors. The rest of us are here to play *this* game, and I, for one, would prefer that you play to the utmost of your abilities, whether as town or scum.

I read the post a different way and I was thinking Pyro was referring to this game and that move would help him as either scum or town in

this game

; not future games. Could you clarify which you meant?

xvart.

[DarthRandal1138]

(...)and I have no intentention of getting lynched.

You've a funny way of showing it.

That said, my point was that, if you're town, getting a bandwagon thrown on yourself is not "playing to win." If you are town, and we mislynch you, we (and by extension, you) could very well win, but the town would be giving up a lynch to help you evaluate your play (or whatever).

Your antics with the self-vote aren't scummy

per se

, but they *are* anti-town.

[Pyrogen]

EBWOP:

Also, as far as the idea of "helping your future play;" while that is all well and good, you need to play *this* game to

win

, not use it as a stepping stone in future endeavors. The rest of us are here to play *this* game, and I, for one, would prefer that you play to the utmost of your abilities, whether as town or scum.

I read the post a different way and I was thinking Pyro was referring to this game and that move would help him as either scum or town in

this game

; not future games. Could you clarify which you meant?

xvart.

Both reasons are why I've made this gambit. Posting more means more data to analysis (and find scum). Analysis of my play means I will improve for later games.

Xvart: I had a question before. Did you think my "system" as everyone calls it, meant that higher votes means more scummieness, as Randal suggested? I've answered your questions, please answer mine.

[Pyrogen]

(...)and I have no intentention of getting lynched.

You've a funny way of showing it.

That said, my point was that, if you're town, getting a bandwagon thrown on yourself is not "playing to win." If you are town, and we mislynch you, we (and by extension, you) could very well win, but the town would be giving up a lynch to help you evaluate your play (or whatever).

Your antics with the self-vote aren't scummy

per se

, but they *are* anti-town.

I am not getting a bandwagon on me. I am getting people to look through my posts carefully and critically. They will realize my actions are not scum actions, thus preventing my mislynch.

[DarthRandal1138]

This will also help me in my future play, in both cases of my being scum or town.

You've also now claimed, unsolicited, that this move will help you if you are, in fact, scum.

Pyro, could you address this point by xvart?

[xvart]

Both reasons are why I've made this gambit. Posting more means more data to analysis (and find scum). Analysis of my play means I will improve for later games.

Gotcha. In that case, I retract my statement.

Xvart: I had a question before. Did you think my "system" as everyone calls it, meant that higher votes means more scummieness, as Randal suggested? I've answered your questions, please answer mine.

Of course (and I appreciate your answers). Although not initially explained very well, I understand what you are saying. While I don't necessarily subscribe to your system, I get that it could be a moderately decent barometer to judge (individually) others; however, I don't think it is effective for everyone, especially this early in the game because everyone is still getting a feeling for others and people voting to draw attention to someone.

For example, my vote for Annachie was not (necessarily) because I thought Annachie was scummy, but rather because Annachie had not yet posted; and once Anna posted, I removed my vote. So in that sense, your "system" was inaccurate and not effective.

xvart.

[Pyrogen]

This will also help me in my future play, in both cases of my being scum or town.

You've also now claimed, unsolicited, that this move will help you if you are, in fact, scum.

Pyro, could you address this point by xvart?

It was meant to show this is no WIFOM. But the play analysis only helps me in future games, not this one.

Extra posts by you two, however, gives more information to scumhunt with, and in particular to catch you if you ever are scum and slip out.

[Pyrogen]

Of course (and I appreciate your answers). Although not initially explained very well, I understand what you are saying. While I don't necessarily subscribe to your system, I get that it could be a moderately decent barometer to judge (individually) others; however, I don't think it is effective for everyone, especially this early in the game because everyone is still getting a feeling for others and people voting to draw attention to someone.

For example, my vote for Annachie was not (necessarily) because I thought Annachie was scummy, but rather because Annachie had not yet posted; and once Anna posted, I removed my vote. So in that sense, your "system" was inaccurate and not effective.

xvart.

No duh, it doesn't apply in every case. My "system" isn't a system at all (I don't even remember who first suggested that). It is to show if I place my vote on a bandwagon, where I stand on that person and what I think that person should do.

[Pyrogen]

I would like to hear more from other people, but its getting late, so I will

FOS fgads

and with my other hand

FOS JustMe

for not posting for a while and even then not posting anything truly substantial.

[Annachie]

I'm comming to my next quandry.

Voting with reason, voting with no reason, and voting with dubious reason.

I'm wondering how each situation can, or should, be interpreed. Especially the latter two since really every vote should be a vote with reason. A vote with dubious reason, to my mind, is scummy and a vote with no reason is suspicious.

But I'm curious of others thoughts on this.

[Pyrogen]

Well, what do you think of the bandwagon on me Annachie?

[Annachie]

Pyrogn(1): Just Me


What bandwagon? lol

[just me]

while i admire your bravery pyrogen, I would warn you that any mafia member worth his or her salt would probably be able to twists your posts any way they want so inviting them to do so may not be so clever.
but, as much as it pains me to say this for now, I believe that my former reasons for voting you have been nullified and you deserve to go free.

unvote

also, we should be aware for any major twisting, I think there has been one instance of this but can't be bothered checking right now, so, that's me.
out

[starkmoon]

just me 1 Annachie
DarthRandal1138
Dondero
Annachie
xvart
Pyrogen
hitogoroshi 1 Dondero,
startransmission
fhqwhgads 1 startransmission

No Lynch


Not Voting

hitogoroshi
fhqwhgads
xvart
Pyrogen
just me
DarthRandal1138

[fhqwhgads]

I was semi-surprised when I was called out on it...

Wait what? I thought it was done to stimulate discussion? Why then surprised? Did you REALLY not think it was going cause a stir doing something out of the ordinary?

So I set a little conversation trap...

Hmm. I'm not sure if you're not just contradicting what you are saying. I really got the impression this was your intention from the start.

That, my friend, is mindless bandwagonning, not scumhunting. Each person here should vote their own personal convictions, and not allow themselves to be swayed by some mythical "will of the town."

I agree with this. Putting some meaning in each number of votes is useless and counter productive.

The problem with such a system is that you ignore the influence of scum votes. And trust me, there's going to be scum votes.

If I think hes suspicious, I'll place the

second

vote.

Fixed that for you. You either think someone is scummy or not. If he is, you vote. Vote count should not be your concern (unless its the hammer and then we only wait for a role claim. A role claim doesn't make anyone less suspicious either, but it might increase the cost of a mislynch.)

self vote and unvote

This reeks of an ATE. As townies, our only (non power role) power in this game is our vote. Thus, our numbers are our advantage. Removing yourself is anti-town (unless you are scum, in which case it is pro-town!)

They will realize my actions are not scum actions, thus preventing my mislynch.

In this perfect word, mislynches also does not happen.

I would like to hear more from other people, but its getting late, so I will FOS fgads and with my other hand FOS JustMe for not posting for a while and even then not posting anything truly substantial.

I think I have made my time zone issue pretty clear. Unless not, I was probably sleeping through that whole debate.

[Pyrogen]

I was semi-surprised when I was called out on it...

Wait what? I thought it was done to stimulate discussion? Why then surprised? Did you REALLY not think it was going cause a stir doing something out of the ordinary?

SEMI-surprised. I knew it would stir up debate, and no doubt I'd get a random vote out of it, but I didn't expect the "obs your anti-town" from xvart.

So I set a little conversation trap...

Hmm. I'm not sure if you're not just contradicting what you are saying. I really got the impression this was your intention from the start.

[quote="Pyrogen]

Vote: No lynch

until more discussion occurs on the first day and/or someone reprimands me for being suspicious.[/quote]

I've mentioned both possibilities in my original vote.

That, my friend, is mindless bandwagonning, not scumhunting. Each person here should vote their own personal convictions, and not allow themselves to be swayed by some mythical "will of the town."

I agree with this. Putting some meaning in each number of votes is useless and counter productive.

The problem with such a system is that you ignore the influence of scum votes. And trust me, there's going to be scum votes.

Yes. You cannot discount scum votes.

If I think hes suspicious, I'll place the

second

vote.

Fixed that for you. You either think someone is scummy or not. If he is, you vote. Vote count should not be your concern (unless its the hammer and then we only wait for a role claim. A role claim doesn't make anyone less suspicious either, but it might increase the cost of a mislynch.)[/quote]

Come on are you saying that the first and third vote on someone are the same? When voting the third vote on some one it certainly means you have to be MORE suspicious of that guy then a first vote as it means A: you bring attention to yourself for bandwagoning and B: You are really bringing the heat on this guy and may possibly help create a mislynch of an innocent.

The hammer, sure you need to be cautious, but you likewise need to be cautious on the L-1 (4th vote) as well. If you vote the fourth and scum hammers, they just caused a mislynch and ended the days discussion. I'll use your words which you have so conviently forgotten for this point: You cannot ignore the influence of scum votes. As an IC you should recognize that not all votes are equal?

self vote and unvote

This reeks of an ATE. As townies, our only (non power role) power in this game is our vote. Thus, our numbers are our advantage. Removing yourself is anti-town (unless you are scum, in which case it is pro-town!)

I think I've addressed this to Randal and Xvart.

They will realize my actions are not scum actions, thus preventing my mislynch.

In this perfect word, mislynches also does not happen.

I'm not disagreeing with this point.

I would like to hear more from other people, but its getting late, so I will FOS fgads and with my other hand FOS JustMe for not posting for a while and even then not posting anything truly substantial.

I think I have made my time zone issue pretty clear. Unless not, I was probably sleeping through that whole debate.

Yet you have still posted only THREE times, the least amounts of posts out of anyone else. Surely even with the time zone thing, you can post as much analysis as everybody?

Most of your post has been undermining my innocence. I do not see one quote where you consider my townieness or concede a point in favor of my townieness. Yet you do not vote, nor even FOS me? I find that strange.

UnFOS JM

Confirm big FOS on fgads

I would vote you but Hito is right, I suffer alot from OMGUSing everyone in both Mafia and IRL. I'm going to wait a couple hours to calm down a bit, reread your posts, and see if I still see scuminess, or if other TOWNIES recognize the scumminess in you. I may be wrong; I have been many times.

[fhqwhgads]

Come on are you saying that the first and third vote on someone are the same? When voting the third vote on some one it certainly means you have to be MORE suspicious of that guy then a first vote as it means A: you bring attention to yourself for bandwagoning and B: You are really bringing the heat on this guy and may possibly help create a mislynch of an innocent.

Of course the value of a vote is much more tactile the closer the person gets to a hammer. But your willingness to vote someone should not be dependent on how many votes there are. Putting someone at L-1 isnt the same as putting the first or second vote on him, but your convictions for putting on the vote should not change.

The hammer, sure you need to be cautious, but you likewise need to be cautious on the L-1 (4th vote) as well. If you vote the fourth and scum hammers, they just caused a mislynch and ended the days discussion. I'll use your words which you have so conviently forgotten for this point: You cannot ignore the influence of scum votes. As an IC you should recognize that not all votes are equal?

Frankly, IMO mislynches are usually hammered by town. Scum put a lot of inspection on their actions if they do the hammer. It is for the same reason that I don't believe in quicklynches. Or rather, that a scum (or even town) player would never hammer on a quick bandwagon. That would be suicide. Scum have much more to lose than town.

Yet you have still posted only THREE times, the least amounts of posts out of anyone else. Surely even with the time zone thing, you can post as much analysis as everybody?

True, but when you post it usually takes an hour or two for someone to respond. You can have a nice little chat. In my case it usually takes around 8 to 12 hours before someone responds to my post. Do you want me to argue with myself?

Most of your post has been undermining my innocence. I do not see one quote where you consider my townieness or concede a point in favor of my townieness. Yet you do not vote, nor even FOS me? I find that strange.

You misunderstand me then. So let me be clear: I don't think you are scum... yet. You're very active and in our faces. Your no-lynch vote also put a lot of attention on yourself. This isn't something scum would do. Unless you are very ballsy scum.

But that does not give you a free pass and one can never be too careful. My points are there so you can clarify your stance. Give more information, so to speak. More information is ALWAYS good for town.

I would vote you but Hito is right, I suffer alot from OMGUSing everyone in both Mafia and IRL.

Technically I didn't vote you, so it wouldn't be OMGUS. If you want to vote me, do so. If you are town, and you feel you have enough of a cause to vote, then you shouldn't need to worry about how it would look to other people. Scum worries about this, because their votes are always insincere.

Now, I'd like to hear more from Annachie: Who do you suspect? Who do you think is town? Why? You post semi-regularly, but your posts contain very little content.

[Annachie]

lol.

I must admit that several of my posts have been quickie direct responses as I walk past the laptop.

iirc, I laid out my main suspicions in my fifth(?) post and for the moment, still stand by them.

Other than Just Me and Dondero, I would have to look at Pyro and DarthRandal and Xvart purely because they lead the 'unvote' count. (I got told that vote hopping is a sign of scum, and my massive 1 game experience seems to back this up)
If I shifted away from Just Me, at the moment it would be onto Pyro

Haven't got anyone pegged as a definate townie yet to my mind. Not quite sure what to look for yet. Not until lynchings start to happen at least.

Something occurs to me. If 5 votes are needed to lynch someone, 9 people are available to vote, but someone wont vote for themselves so 8 people to vote. 2 scum in the game. It really means that the first vote should include 1 scum with a fair chance of both of them voting. Unless of course we dropped on a scum in which case we will probably see the scum voting for someone else.
Now I think I understand some of the L and L-1 comments.

[DarthRandal1138]

Mod:

I unvoted Pyrogen here.

@Annachie

It really means that the first vote should include 1 scum with a fair chance of both of them voting.

By "first vote," do you mean the first *lynch*, or are you saying that anyone who places the first vote on someone is likely to be scum?

Except in the case of a townie who is acting

really

scummy, almost any mislynch is bound to have one or both of the scum voting on it, and even in the case where we lynch scum, you can't automatically assume that everyone who voted for scum is town, or that anyone who did *not* vote is obvscum.

[hitogoroshi]

Other than Just Me and Dondero, I would have to look at Pyro and DarthRandal and Xvart purely because they lead the 'unvote' count. (I got told that vote hopping is a sign of scum, and my massive 1 game experience seems to back this up)

Actually, vote hopping can be a sign of town as well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's more often a town-tell than a scum tell. Scum, after all, aren't worrying about mislynching, and they never have second thoughts about someone's alignment. Figuring out whether vote hopping is town or scum is kind of an art, but there are some tricks. I don't want to explicitly say my criterion - because after all, scum can read just as much as town - but generally townies vote hop to pressure and scum vote hop as a reaction.

In the early early game, though, it's really more of a null tell than anything. Seeing as a bandwagon hasn't formed on anyone, voting is incredibly low cost (because it doesn't really stand a chance of getting someone lynched unless you post a strong case along with it.) That's why the RVS can be random.

[Annachie]

Mod:

@Annachie

It really means that the first vote should include 1 scum with a fair chance of both of them voting.

By "first vote," do you mean the first *lynch*, or are you saying that anyone who places the first vote on someone is likely to be scum?

Oops, yes. By vote there I meant the set of 5 votes that will lead to the first lynching. Still geting to grips with the lingo.

[xvart]

Other than Just Me and Dondero, I would have to look at Pyro and DarthRandal and Xvart purely because they lead the 'unvote' count. (I got told that vote hopping is a sign of scum, and my massive 1 game experience seems to back this up)
If I shifted away from Just Me, at the moment it would be onto Pyro

That's five people; more than half the town as possible scum! And regardless, I believe I only unvoted twice, both of which I explained adequately. If I need explain it again I would be happy to do so.

xvart.